Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2006, Page 23
originated not only from Berg and his writings, but also from various levels of leadership
throughout the group, and that abuses and problems happened both before, and after, the
RNR. He observes also that
...even in the face of serious abuse and profound personal loss, disciples
consistently attribute [italics added] these difficulties to the character flaws of
individuals. They do not find fault with the nature of the community, and
especially not with the leadership of Father David.‖ (p. 92)
Chancellor might have explored this attribution process further certainly, others have
tackled it using theories that dissect the role of attribution to religious commitment in
COG/The Family and in other religious settings (see Kent, 1994a Spilka, Shaver, and
Kirkpatrick, 1985).
Chancellor delves into the most controversial facets of COG/The Family‘s life in chapter 4.
Many scholars have debated the impact of Berg‘s sexual ideology and his dissemination of it
to his disciples through the Mo Letters (see, for example, Kent, 1994b Lewis and Melton,
1994 and Van Zandt, 1991). Indeed, in substantial part this subject has contributed to the
polemic surrounding the group. Chancellor describes his work as ―neither an apology nor a
tabloid expose‖ (p. 96)—an accurate statement in terms of his treatment of sexuality
(sexual sharing, FFing, and child sexuality) and of other facets of his research. Many of the
interviews are extremely revealing in terms of members‘ experiences of child sexual abuse
and of the expectations that Berg placed upon the women of the group. The sexual ethos of
the group originated in Berg‘s household, where, by the early 1970s, his ―startling new
conclusions on the relationship between sex and religion‖ (p. 97) soon became part of his
dialogue in the Mo Letters. Ultimately, Chancellor concludes that sexual sharing, instead of
emerging as a communally sanctioned experience, became for some members a painful
period of adjustment.
With the institution of FFing, the role of women in the group came to the fore. Chancellor
interviewed many female disciples on this topic and provides an overview of the extent of its
practice. His discussion, however, lacks a level of critical analysis that one might expect in a
comprehensive text such as this. One gets the sense that the close relationship Chancellor
developed with the women whom he interviewed has prevented him from being fully
analytical (he discusses methodological problems such as subject-researcher closeness early
in his book). For example, he appears to fall just short of describing FFing as prostitution
(pp. 120, 121). Perhaps his hesitancy is borne out of a sense of loyalty to those who
revealed to him what they have discussed with no one else. Accepting the explanations of
the women who describe and rationalize their experiences, Chancellor does not explore
issues of power, patriarchy, authority, and control in terms of the leadership‘s expectations
that women FF—initially as a means to save souls and recruit—but later, also to ―Make it
Pay‖ (Berg, 1978a).
One could argue that the disciples‘ denials that FFing constituted prostitution are testimony
to the success of Berg‘s socialization of the women‘s beliefs and actions previously,
Chancellor noted the extent of Berg‘s authority in the socialization process.4 Moreover, it
may be very difficult for some of the women to accept psychologically that they did indeed
engage in a form of prostitution whereby they exchanged sexual acts for money and other
favours. Miriam Williams‘ (1998) discussion of FFing (which I discuss later) helps to
elucidate the tension between belief, behaviour, and self-perception. Despite Chancellor‘s
reluctance to analyse FFing critically, his account is still a valuable contribution to the
literature that deals with this highly emotive subject.5
Even more contentious than FFing was Berg‘s promotion of adult-child sexual relations.
Although the full extent of this abuse is unknown, the interviewees reveal their knowledge
of its existence. (Many disciples, however, appear in a state of denial or self-deception
originated not only from Berg and his writings, but also from various levels of leadership
throughout the group, and that abuses and problems happened both before, and after, the
RNR. He observes also that
...even in the face of serious abuse and profound personal loss, disciples
consistently attribute [italics added] these difficulties to the character flaws of
individuals. They do not find fault with the nature of the community, and
especially not with the leadership of Father David.‖ (p. 92)
Chancellor might have explored this attribution process further certainly, others have
tackled it using theories that dissect the role of attribution to religious commitment in
COG/The Family and in other religious settings (see Kent, 1994a Spilka, Shaver, and
Kirkpatrick, 1985).
Chancellor delves into the most controversial facets of COG/The Family‘s life in chapter 4.
Many scholars have debated the impact of Berg‘s sexual ideology and his dissemination of it
to his disciples through the Mo Letters (see, for example, Kent, 1994b Lewis and Melton,
1994 and Van Zandt, 1991). Indeed, in substantial part this subject has contributed to the
polemic surrounding the group. Chancellor describes his work as ―neither an apology nor a
tabloid expose‖ (p. 96)—an accurate statement in terms of his treatment of sexuality
(sexual sharing, FFing, and child sexuality) and of other facets of his research. Many of the
interviews are extremely revealing in terms of members‘ experiences of child sexual abuse
and of the expectations that Berg placed upon the women of the group. The sexual ethos of
the group originated in Berg‘s household, where, by the early 1970s, his ―startling new
conclusions on the relationship between sex and religion‖ (p. 97) soon became part of his
dialogue in the Mo Letters. Ultimately, Chancellor concludes that sexual sharing, instead of
emerging as a communally sanctioned experience, became for some members a painful
period of adjustment.
With the institution of FFing, the role of women in the group came to the fore. Chancellor
interviewed many female disciples on this topic and provides an overview of the extent of its
practice. His discussion, however, lacks a level of critical analysis that one might expect in a
comprehensive text such as this. One gets the sense that the close relationship Chancellor
developed with the women whom he interviewed has prevented him from being fully
analytical (he discusses methodological problems such as subject-researcher closeness early
in his book). For example, he appears to fall just short of describing FFing as prostitution
(pp. 120, 121). Perhaps his hesitancy is borne out of a sense of loyalty to those who
revealed to him what they have discussed with no one else. Accepting the explanations of
the women who describe and rationalize their experiences, Chancellor does not explore
issues of power, patriarchy, authority, and control in terms of the leadership‘s expectations
that women FF—initially as a means to save souls and recruit—but later, also to ―Make it
Pay‖ (Berg, 1978a).
One could argue that the disciples‘ denials that FFing constituted prostitution are testimony
to the success of Berg‘s socialization of the women‘s beliefs and actions previously,
Chancellor noted the extent of Berg‘s authority in the socialization process.4 Moreover, it
may be very difficult for some of the women to accept psychologically that they did indeed
engage in a form of prostitution whereby they exchanged sexual acts for money and other
favours. Miriam Williams‘ (1998) discussion of FFing (which I discuss later) helps to
elucidate the tension between belief, behaviour, and self-perception. Despite Chancellor‘s
reluctance to analyse FFing critically, his account is still a valuable contribution to the
literature that deals with this highly emotive subject.5
Even more contentious than FFing was Berg‘s promotion of adult-child sexual relations.
Although the full extent of this abuse is unknown, the interviewees reveal their knowledge
of its existence. (Many disciples, however, appear in a state of denial or self-deception
